Super Rugby Trans Tasman
-
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean of course they would, they would want to be able to attract more players in the future and they would want them playing at their best whilst they were there. Theyre not going to suddenly make a player that would normally get a sub like halfback or hooker sudden play until they drop dead
What alternative universe are you in?
was going to ask you the same thing, its cear whichever one it is there is a lot of tinfoil
-
@antipodean That's pretty easily addressed with minute caps on international players. Which should already exist.
-
I still think that the initial idea of a Super 12 (5 NZ, 5 Aussie, Fiji Drua, Moana Pasifika) is the best, with one round robin. So one year franchises play 5 (or 6) home games and 6 (or 5) away games, the next year it's 6 home games and 5 away games. After that round robin, the teams ranked 3 to 6 play quarter finals for two spots in the semis against teams ranked 1 and 2. The winners of the semis play the Final. No conferences; no guaranteed quarter final spots for teams from a particular country (all based on one combined ranking).
The current way of central contracting and only selecting players from NZ has served the ABs well over the years; I don't see a good reason to change that, especially not with guys like Forrester having the coin to offer huge salaries to lure our best players away if we allow them to play outside NZ. I'm with @antipodean on this point.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean of course they would, they would want to be able to attract more players in the future and they would want them playing at their best whilst they were there. Theyre not going to suddenly make a player that would normally get a sub like halfback or hooker sudden play until they drop dead
What alternative universe are you in?
was going to ask you the same thing, its cear whichever one it is there is a lot of tinfoil
I'm not the one ignorant to established practise around the world where players ineligible for the country they play in are seen as disposable. I'm not the one who can't see in an era where even All Blacks have work-ons that the current coaching and administration of Australian sides is hardly likely to address.
I don't think you're actually an All Blacks supporter at all. You joined once McLennan was confirmed as chairman of Rugby Australia didn't you..?
-
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I still think that the initial idea of a Super 12 (5 NZ, 5 Aussie, Fiji Drua, Moana Pasifika) is the best, with one round robin. So one year franchises play 5 (or 6) home games and 6 (or 5) away games, the next year it's 6 home games and 5 away games. After that round robin, the teams ranked 3 to 6 play quarter finals for two spots in the semis against teams ranked 1 and 2. The winners of the semis play the Final. No conferences; no guaranteed quarter final spots for teams from a particular country (all based on one combined ranking).
The current way of central contracting and only selecting players from NZ has served the ABs well over the years; I don't see a good reason to change that, especially not with guys like Forrester having the coin to offer huge salaries to lure our best players away if we allow them to play outside NZ. I'm with @antipodean on this point.
thats fair enough but it skips past the initial point which was how to deal with the NZ teams being so much stronger than all those others and whether all those other teams losing on the regular actual does more damage to rugby in the region long term, plus the other thought that aussie rugby doesnt want that
-
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I still think that the initial idea of a Super 12 (5 NZ, 5 Aussie, Fiji Drua, Moana Pasifika) is the best, with one round robin. So one year franchises play 5 (or 6) home games and 6 (or 5) away games, the next year it's 6 home games and 5 away games. After that round robin, the teams ranked 3 to 6 play quarter finals for two spots in the semis against teams ranked 1 and 2. The winners of the semis play the Final. No conferences; no guaranteed quarter final spots for teams from a particular country (all based on one combined ranking).
The current way of central contracting and only selecting players from NZ has served the ABs well over the years; I don't see a good reason to change that, especially not with guys like Forrester having the coin to offer huge salaries to lure our best players away if we allow them to play outside NZ. I'm with @antipodean on this point.
Yes me to, for all the reason you have outlined above.
Losing the Central contract system means large problems IMO for the AB's in the long run.
Do we really want to see our best 20 players playing for Australian teams because there is Corperate money there for Rugby in Australia for this sort of thing.
Money will talk in that scenario then to keep up the NZ teams will have to be sold of to rich overseas interests to stay in the game.Those interests will not care about the long term NZ game or the AB's. -
As a kiwi fan, I like that model, but were I an Aussie fan, I don't think I would.
I also don't know whether broadcasters will be that keen on that competition - that would be the key factor because if they don't need the conference model to make money, your idea is the best way to do it.
However, if maintaining Oz viewers and/ore other international viewers requires a conference system (according to broadcaster deals), we can't have the system we want. It's that simple.
It's probably worth remembering that while we may be very good at rugby, we are a tiny little country that no-one really gives a fuck about, so we must have a competition that is valuable to broadcasters or we can wave good bye to our ABs.
-
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean of course they would, they would want to be able to attract more players in the future and they would want them playing at their best whilst they were there. Theyre not going to suddenly make a player that would normally get a sub like halfback or hooker sudden play until they drop dead
What alternative universe are you in?
was going to ask you the same thing, its cear whichever one it is there is a lot of tinfoil
I'm not the one ignorant to established practise around the world where players ineligible for the country they play in are seen as disposable. I'm not the one who can't see in an era where even All Blacks have work-ons that the current coaching and administration of Australian sides is hardly likely to address.
I don't think you're actually an All Blacks supporter at all. You joined once McLennan was confirmed as chairman of Rugby Australia didn't you..?
if you can come up with a plan that keeps the AB's as strong as they are and protects the players as you describe whilst also keeping all the other parties happy then great, but currently we're you just saying everyone's else ideas are shit and seem to ignore the hole we're in...which is, aussie doesn't want to play against nz teams that are so much stronger and we cant afford to go it alone...so we need to do something to bring aussie rugby up
-
@gt12 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
It's probably worth remembering that while we may be very good at rugby, we are a tiny little country that no-one really gives a fuck about, so we must have a competition that is valuable to broadcasters or we can wave good bye to our ABs
this is the key point.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
so we need to do something to bring aussie rugby up
actually i think your plan just brings us all down
Our ABs, attracted by Aussie money, get their learning done by the admitted-by-everyone shit Aussie coaches, making them worse. Aussie players get their pathways blocked by superior NZ players, stunting their development.
Both Countries get worse. The 6N laughs themselves to sleep.
-
@mariner4life i guess i just have a more optimistic view on a lng term goal
aussie teams get a few kiwis to help them win more...use that success to build more support...more support mean more money...use that money to develop young local talent...repeat
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
use that money to develop young local talent
so the ARU are throwing out their entire play book?
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean of course they would, they would want to be able to attract more players in the future and they would want them playing at their best whilst they were there. Theyre not going to suddenly make a player that would normally get a sub like halfback or hooker sudden play until they drop dead
What alternative universe are you in?
was going to ask you the same thing, its cear whichever one it is there is a lot of tinfoil
I'm not the one ignorant to established practise around the world where players ineligible for the country they play in are seen as disposable. I'm not the one who can't see in an era where even All Blacks have work-ons that the current coaching and administration of Australian sides is hardly likely to address.
I don't think you're actually an All Blacks supporter at all. You joined once McLennan was confirmed as chairman of Rugby Australia didn't you..?
if you can come up with a plan that keeps the AB's as strong as they are and protects the players as you describe whilst also keeping all the other parties happy then great, but currently we're you just saying everyone's else ideas are shit and seem to ignore the hole we're in...which is, aussie doesn't want to play against nz teams that are so much stronger and we cant afford to go it alone...so we need to do something to bring aussie rugby up
I made it two hours ago https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/post/593879
The reality is the success of the All Blacks pays for NZR. There are plenty of examples where nations that have great domestic comps don't do well internationally, and examples where the preeminent domestic sport is of sufficiently high standard that other nations watch it. If we start exporting our best talent we can look no further than the islands a few hours north to see how that works out for them.
The plan linked to provides more depth for us and more short term competitiveness for Australia. We get to remain master of our own destiny in the short to medium term.
-
@mariner4life we cant poo poo on every idea because the current admin is shit, yes, RA would need to do better...but they'll need to do that for any option to work
-
@antipodean and i supported it on the surface but it didn't explain where they would be situated or how they would draw supporters from the existing franchises, would people change teams? would you spit the crusaders? if not would you just dilute all the other teams and leave them miles ahead of everyone else?
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
so we need to do something to bring aussie rugby up
actually i think your plan just brings us all down
Our ABs, attracted by Aussie money, get their learning done by the admitted-by-everyone shit Aussie coaches, making them worse. Aussie players get their pathways blocked by superior NZ players, stunting their development.
Both Countries get worse. The 6N laughs themselves to sleep.
If they have shit Aussie coaches then they won't attract much top talent, regardless. They will need good Aussie or foreign coaches.
Restricting themselves to Aussie coaches would be as dumb as their player rules - only recruiting dual qualified Toni Pulu's and ignoring non qualified Caleb Clarke's.
If we want a good even comp then remove the dumb artificial barriers . If we want to keep the structural unevenness with even worse long term trend, then keep status quo.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@mariner4life we cant poo poo on every idea because the current admin is shit, yes, RA would need to do better...but they'll need to do that for any option to work
current? the ARU have ignored development pathways for the entire 20 years i have been involved in the sport in this country. In fact they have put up barriers to participation, with shit like levies to help pay off State Union deficits.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean and i supported it on the surface but it didn't explain where they would be situated or how they would draw supporters from the existing franchises, would people change teams? would you spit the crusaders? if not would you just dilute all the other teams and leave them miles ahead of everyone else?
Rework the pretence that the current franchises are aligned with existing unions and divvy them up.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@mariner4life we cant poo poo on every idea because the current admin is shit, yes, RA would need to do better...but they'll need to do that for any option to work
ha ha reminds me of this episode
